The explainers of Krishnamurti
The issue is as follows:
There are already many analyzes of the teachings of Krishnamurti. There are whole books explaining it. Someone even once said that there was already a "K literary movement" in which many authors deal with explaining the teachings to others, something against which K warned a lot.
For me, each and every one of these analyzes are harmful because inevitably the teachings are filtered and distorted by the author's conditionings.
There are very few people in whom meditations arise and can amplify the shock wave of the teachings (so to speak), but such people never focus on K's personality or take the teaching itself as an object of analysis; rather, these meditations (as with K) are directed to the understanding of reality, of life.
That is, the person who lives the teachings is not going to deal with the logical dissection of what K has said; instead, it will direct its empty gaze towards reality and something that is not himself will be expressed.
Originally posted on Facebook